Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Will the Religious Right Cause an Increase in Abortion?

A very interesting statistic has just been released, indicating that the rate of abortion and teen pregnancies is on the decline in Canada, but not since Stephen Harper planted the Religious Right on Parliament Hill.

The 36.9% decline was for the period between 1996 to 2006, and is being attributed to: "Better access to contraception, higher quality sex education and shifting social norms ... "

And yet those are all of the things that Harper's ungodly, not of this world, "God Squad" want to put an end to. They only see things in black and white (for some literally).

“It’s important to look at teen pregnancy rates because they’re a basic fundamental indicator of young women’s sexual and reproductive health. While not all teen pregnancies are a bad thing, when we see [rates] dropping, it’s a fairly clear indicator that young women are doing increasingly well in terms of controlling and protecting their reproductive health.” “In comparison to the United States, we tend to have a more balanced, sensible approach to adolescent sexual health. Generally speaking what you find is that the more a society has an accepting attitude toward the reality of adolescent sexuality, the lower the teen pregnancy rate is. Canadians tend to have a more relaxed attitude towards adolescent sexuality than people in the United States.”

Mr. McKay said America’s emphasis on abstinence-only sex ed “tends to result in a higher percentage of teens becoming pregnant,” as does the country’s lack of universal health care. Poverty is another factor.

Hmmmm ... "emphasis on abstinence-only sex ed “tends to result in a higher percentage of teens becoming pregnant ..." And also no doubt a higher percentage of abortions.

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, and unless the Religious Right start pushing for MORE social programs instead of less, women and young girls will be given fewer choices. I saw a sign at one of the "pro-life" rallies that read "poverty is no justification for abortion". Maybe that marcher should have sat down, turned their sign around and read it. Duh!

Maybe those self-righteous, sanctimonious teabaggers who can actually read, should read this article, because what they believe they're marching against, might just result in an increase in what they're marching against, if they're successful.

And since we know that abstinance doesn't work with teenagers, they could just lose their own daughters to Dr. Coat Hanger. Then what will they march for?

[Harper] has given the suggestion of landing on the righteous side of a religiously charged debate, while keeping himself at arm's length. This way, Harper doesn't alienate himself from the average Canadian – particularly the centre-right voters. It is a repeated, adept, but not at all secretive, pattern of finding and exploiting those secular issues that strike at the heart of a silently religious nation.

It all means that the decision not to allow funding for safe abortions in developing nations most likely has very little to do with the security and health of the approximately 70,000 women who die annually during unsafe ones. Instead, it has everything to do with the Conservative party's own domestic political gains, and pandering to a lucrative – and growing – conservative base. It's decidedly cynical, but it seems to have worked. A recent poll found that, though 58% of Canadians said they were against the government's decision, it was those in favour of the move who held the biggest ever pro-life rally on Parliament Hill to celebrate it.